Bill Frezza is a 35-year veteran of the technology industry. After graduating from MIT with degrees in both science and engineering, Bill spent his early years at Bell Laboratories. Since then, he has worked as a product manager, salesman, marketer, entrepreneur, consultant, technology evangelist, and venture capitalist. Bill holds seven patents and has been investing in early-stage tech startups for the last 17 years as a partner in a venture capital firm. Since 2008, he has been writing weekly opinion columns for publications such as RealClearMarkets.com, Forbes.com, the Huffington Post and Bio-IT World and appeared regularly on TV and radio outlets, including CNBC, Fox Business and WBAL. In 2011, he was a finalist for the Hoiles Prize for excellence in American journalism and in October 2013, he became the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s 2013-2014 Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow. In January 2014, Bill began hosting RealClear Radio Hour airing Saturdays on Boston’s WXKS 1200AM & WJMN 94.5FM-HD2.

Those of us concerned about the decaying credibility of Big Science were dismayed to learn that the whistleblower site Science Fraud has been shut down due to a barrage of legal threats against its operator. With billions of dollars in federal science funding hinging on the integrity of academic researchers, and billions more in health care dollars riding on the truthfulness of pharmaceutical research claims, the industry needs more websites like this, not fewer.

Regular readers of Retraction Watch, a watchdog site run by two medical reporters, got the news along with a story about the blog’s anonymous editor, who has since come forward and identified himself as Professor Paul Brookes, a researcher at the University of Rochester. Operated as a crowdsourced reference site much like Wikipedia, Science Fraud, in its six months of operation, documented egregiously suspicious research results published in over 300 peer reviewed publications. Many were subsequently retracted, including a paper by an author whose lawyer sent Science Fraud a cease and desist letter.

Given the tens of millions of dollars in misappropriated research funds that financed this small sample of what is surely a larger problem and the cascading pollution of the scientific literature whenever fraudulent publications get cited, it’s a shame that this tip-of-of-the-iceberg effort at cleansing the muck is being shut down rather than expanded.

Attempts to interview Dr. Brookes were not successful. One can just imagine what he is going through for the sin of trying to shine a light into the dark corners of the guild that controls the flow of money, tenure, prestige, and publications in the insular world of Big Science. While pressure to publish is higher than ever given the aforementioned financial and non-financial rewards conferred on scientists claiming breakthrough results, nothing excuses the ethical transgressions Science Fraud was designed to uncover.

Fraud, plagiarism, cherry-picked results, poor or non-existent controls, confirmation bias, opaque, missing, or unavailable data, and stonewalling when questioned have gone from being rare to being everyday occurrences. Just look at the soaring retraction level across multiple scientific publications and the increasingly vocal hand wringing of science vigilantes. Hardly a prestigious university or large pharmaceutical company is immune, with the likes of Harvard, Cal Tech, Johns Hopkins, Ohio State, University of Kentucky, and the University of Maryland recently fingered by Retraction Watch.

And if you think science fraud only impacts the scientific literature, consider the horrendous case of Dr. Scott Reuben, formerly chief of the acute pain service at Baystate Medical Center in Massachusetts. He was sentenced to prison for falsifying research data purportedly demonstrating the efficacy of analgesic medications sold by Pfizer, Merck, and Wyeth that were published in dozens of journals before his fabrications were uncovered. And while Reuben is through as a scientist the problem lingers on, as his research papers were among the most heavily cited in the field.

When I first began looking into the increasingly vexing problem of irreproducible scientific research I assumed that the bulk of the problem was caused by sloppy science. Not so, says a National Academy of Sciences study that attributes two thirds of the retractions in the biomedical and life-sciences to scientific misconduct. And remember, these are only the people that have gotten caught.

In fact, it’s amazing that anyone gets caught at all. While the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), part of the Department of Health and Human Services, is chartered with rooting out science fraud, investigators must rely on allegations submitted by scientists in the field. And yet consider the consequences to the career of any whistleblower. How many graduate students are likely to turn in their Principal Investigator (PI) knowing that this would dash their hopes of earning a Ph.D.? How many post-docs would do the same, throwing away their chance for a faculty appointment? How many assistant professors would risk receiving tenure by outing a colleague? And how many PIs would be willing to wade into a controversy by bringing charges against the very same peers who review their publications and grant proposals? It isn’t hard to see how this can lead to a culture of omerta (though without worrying about a visit from Luca Brasi).

Conspiracy theory? I have personally spoken to young graduate students asked to review papers on behalf of their PIs who detected falsified data, usually by noticing identical noise floors in two different readings – a statistical impossibility. They were told to keep quiet about it. These fraudulent results are now part of the scientific literature. Every time I write a column like this I get email from more of them, none of whom will come forward for the reasons outlined above.

Something needs to be done to change the culture to make it easier to root out the bad apples. Too much is at stake to let this go—not just because of the research dollars wasted or the misguided public policy that might result, but because bad science threatens to mislead the vast majority of good scientists who wouldn’t dream of doctoring their results.

The change will come not from public policy, but from the conscientious action of brave individuals. If you witness science fraud and you don’t speak out, consider yourself part of the problem. Meanwhile, a proposal is being drafted to establish a non‐profit foundation, the Association for Anonymous Post‐Publication Peer Review (AAPPR), whose purpose will be to continue the mission of Science Fraud under the auspices of an open, properly managed governance structure. Stay tuned as the story develops.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I agree, it’s a problem that needs to be addressed. The “bad scientists” are selling the future of humanity for personal gain. Science is the search for what is, not government grants. It not only wastes a lot of money but, as you pointed out, can send honest researches on a wild goose chase based upon their false data. It’s like throwing a wrench into the gears of progress. Shameful. As Louis Brandeis eloquently put it, “sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

Thank you for opening up my eyes. Its true that scientist are the Gate Keepers of certain functions of society. If these allegations are true, then Big Science will most definitely need their own version of Sarbanes-Oxley (which I will admit isn’t perfect).

I do have one question, it is to my understanding that once a paper is publish, it is up to the Scientific Community to recreate the results and verify the paper’s conclusion? If so, then that makes it all the more worrisome that this doctoring of data is going on and no one is speaking up…

You are right… …but it doesn’t work the way it says on the box. There is collusion (deliberate or accidental, it doesn’t matter) between journals, granting agencies, universities and private capital in wanting the “new’, not the “right”. Result, science tends to have a lack of scepticism and an amazing trust in the written word. The advice given to young untenured staff tends to be “publish, don’t waste your time questioning the “garbage”. Yet, as others have noted, questioning the garbage is how you really discover the new. Personally I take the opposite stand. However, my current experiences in supporting a young tenure track member of staff who is engaged in questioning published work has really brought highlighted how poorly science works and the risks involved.

Much of popular science is extremely sloppy also. It sets the example. If you believe in logic approaches such as reductio ad absurdum, then the -theory- of quantum mechanics is obviously as much hoo-ha as the theories of Ptolemaic Astronomy. The discoveries of bosons are correct, but discovery is not the same thing as validating a theory.

Columbus thought he’d discovered India.

I just read a book that presented the Six Degrees of Separation stuff as a useful idea. Unfortunately, the book actually presented the original numbers behind the two main experiments. The first experiment started with 300 envelopes of which 64 got thru. Later with e-mail, they tried with 24,000 e-mails of which 400 got through.

The claim of 6 degrees is that it takes 6 steps on average to get to -any- recipient in the world. That is complete hogwash. IF AND ONLY IF the message gets thru, then there is on average 6 degrees of separation BUT MORE THAN LIKELY THERE IS NO CONNECTION TO MEASURE WHATSOEVER BECAUSE THE MESSAGE DID NOT GET THROUGH. That’s not 6 degrees of separation between everyone on planet Earth.

Science reviewing has always been an insular activity just like anything else full of experts. If you are a young student just starting out, you might be able to poke holes in the Six Degrees theory and make a name for yourself but if you the aspiring physics student start saying the entire basis of quantum mechanics is bogus due to actual logic used by real physicists, you do not get your degree.

Shutting down Science Fraud is essentially predicted in the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. That’s one of those books everyone has heard of but few read.

In July 2012 I registered the domain www.science‐fraud.org and established a website intended to facilitate anonymous reporting of questions about data in published scientific papers, similar to other recent sites (e.g. the German “abnormalscience” blog, and the Japanese blogger Juichii Jigen). The goal was to increase confidence in the scientific literature, and aided by anonymous assistants who submitted material and helped with its analysis, we documented >500 questionable pieces of data in >300 publications. The site was operated anonymously under the pseudonym “fraudster”, and the email account scifraudster@gmail.com.

On January 3rd 2013 someone uncovered my identity and emailed ~100 individuals, including several scientists whose work was listed on the site, encouraging legal action. They also CC’ed numerous officials at my University, incorrectly referring to science‐fraud as a hate site and stating that our claims were unsubstantiated and motivated by jealousy and personal vendetta. While I acknowledge limitations in the approach adopted on the website (and perhaps even the name of the site), nevertheless the factual basis of the annotated data presented is indisputable, and in many cases questioned papers have now been retracted or corrected as a result. Furthermore, it is clear from thousands of readers, commenters and anonymous submitters that a system for anonymous post publication peer review is an unmet need in science.

In this regard, a proposal is currently being drafted to establish a non‐profit foundation, the association for anonymous post‐publication peer review (AAPPR). Its structure is evolving, but key concepts include: (i) common ownership and authorship by a group of named scientists, (ii) a set of guidelines and by‐laws to ensure democratic analysis of submitted papers, and an elected management structure, (iii) no assignment of motive or blame regarding the origin of questioned data, (iv) attention to issues of free speech, and secure communication among members. At this early stage we have over 30 scientists interested, and input is welcomed from any scientist interested in signing on as a charter member or with ideas to share (psbrookes@aappr.org). Despite this recent setback, I’m eager to push forward with the next step in anonymous PPPR.

Also, media attention (such as your article here), due to those actions being taken against Paul Brookes, will perhaps cauterize the community against pseudo-science and give him the big community support push that he deserves.

This is the best news I’ve had all day… an honest scientist who in only 6 months was able to make a difference and who, in spite of obstacles that may shift but won’t disappear for a while, is determined to do what he can to restore confidence in the scientific literature. It is a huge undertaking. Bravo! to Mr. Brookes and all those scientists who are willing to contribute to AAPPR.

Paul Brookes did everyone a favour and has helped sensitise the community that there is a problem, even if its source is only a small minority. Some of the big issues are institutional inertia in dealing with fraud. Ironically, this is compounded by the very high level of integrity across 99.9% of the profession: many colleagues are genuinely shocked that anyone would even consider making it up . Fraudulent science does need rooting out and we can only hope that Paul Brookes’ next venture is well supported by the community and that as in sports, real action is taken against cheaters.